• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2011 tOSU Offense Discussion

That offensive performance was a systemic failure. You can point to players, coaches, and facets individually or just look at it as one big mess.
Bad plan going in, bad execution of it, inability to adapt, and on and on. Lack of coach to player, player to player, and player to coach confidence and trust. I would label it as an approach that seems willing to tolerate ineffectiveness in exchange for maintaining low risk - which makes no sense if your goal is to win the game.

This was Tressel-ball, but Tressel wasn't on the sideline orchestrating it. It's often been ugly, but that's ok as long as the end result is a win. When it's ugly and you lose, well, it becomes intolerably ugly.

Some of us may yearn for the wide open, high risk-high reward offense, but when we lose a game because we can't run out the clock, everyone will be pining for the days of Tressel-ball.

This Miami game reminded me of the ucla game about 10 years ago. We went out there and couldn't run, pass, score, or anything. But it got straightened out eventually with more coaching and the right players.

When Tressel was willing to up the risk and take his shots, his offense was fun and pretty. We just don't have the horses to run that race right now.

As a side note, I've seen some stupid plays called in my time, but running Joe on the zone read and letting him keep it is my most recent winner. The only thing that makes it less stupid is if it was scripted and Miller was supposed to be in there, but there was a mix up. :)
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyefrankmp;1995100; said:
It takes two to tango. It is hard to tell from the outside if the receivers are running the correct routes. If the QB and receivers are not on the same page, is this the QBs fault or receivers. If the timing is off, who is to blame. Is the QB not reading the coverage correctly to find the open man? Just to put all the blame on our poor passing game on the QB is not right.

I disagree. If a WR is wide open and the QB focuses on only one target on the other side of the field before throwing the ball out of bounds, it is the QB's fault.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyesin07;1995252; said:
I disagree. If a WR is wide open and the QB focuses on only one target on the other side of the field before throwing the ball out of bounds, it is the QB's fault.

...And the staff making the decisions in my IMO.

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by our oline play. Seems if we could get the QB/gameplan straightened out, this would be a dangerous team. Granted, saying it that way makes it sound so "easy", but I don't guess it actually is that easy.
 
Upvote 0
I was only able to see most of the game, so I am probably missing something. But people seem very pumped about Hall, who indeed looks good, but I'm not sure he's exactly a savior. I thought Hyde looked amazing on his runs, actually.

I missed the first quarter. . . parts of the rest. That may explain things.
 
Upvote 0
OSUK;1995233; said:
That offensive performance was a systemic failure. You can point to players, coaches, and facets individually or just look at it as one big mess.
Bad plan going in, bad execution of it, inability to adapt, and on and on. Lack of coach to player, player to player, and player to coach confidence and trust. I would label it as an approach that seems willing to tolerate ineffectiveness in exchange for maintaining low risk - which makes no sense if your goal is to win the game.

Absolutely agree with focusing on risk and risk avoidance. Not scoring points creates as much risk of loss as turnovers.

This was Tressel-ball, but Tressel wasn't on the sideline orchestrating it. It's often been ugly, but that's ok as long as the end result is a win. When it's ugly and you lose, well, it becomes intolerably ugly.
Disagree strongly. Tresselball does not equal terrible offense.

Some of us may yearn for the wide open, high risk-high reward offense, but when we lose a game because we can't run out the clock, everyone will be pining for the days of Tressel-ball.
Again I have to disagree. Effective offense does not mean wide open, high risk, pass happy, pretty, or any of the other false analogies that have been created to gloss over the past decade of under performing offensive squads. Good offense and a physically tough, sound fundamental football team are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly legal within the rules of the game to be good at both.

This years offense could be effective as hell if a QB and his WR's could simply identify when a defense over commits to stop the run(which the strong run game will force them to do), switch to the right play and complete an effing forward pass against single coverage man to man defense.

This Miami game reminded me of the ucla game about 10 years ago. We went out there and couldn't run, pass, score, or anything. But it got straightened out eventually with more coaching and the right players.
Straightened out to the tune of 7-6 with a defense significantly better than the one taking the field in '11. The best comp for this years team isn't 2004 or 2001, its 1999. We will be lucky to win 6 games and go to a Bowl. You simply cannot be this bad at QB and beat anyone but the bottom feeders like IU.

When Tressel was willing to up the risk and take his shots, his offense was fun and pretty. We just don't have the horses to run that race right now.
It was never all that pretty but it was effective for about a total of 3 of the past 10 years when Troy Smith and Pryor were at the height of their abilities. Other than that the O has consistently been the under performing phase of the three. Tressel is gone, there is no reason to try and act like it didn't happen anymore.

As a side note, I've seen some stupid plays called in my time, but running Joe on the zone read and letting him keep it is my most recent winner. The only thing that makes it less stupid is if it was scripted and Miller was supposed to be in there, but there was a mix up. :)
I've always considered Cooper running the option on 4th and 1 deep in his own territory with a statue of a QB that allowed scUM to kick the game winning FG when they stuffed it the worst. That was until Luke Fickell decided to put all his eggs in the Bollman basket. The individual play calling gaffes that we will see this year pale in comparison to that whopper.
 
Upvote 0
Jim Bollman could learn a lot by reading the Smart Football blog.

constraint theory

what makes an offense terrible "grab bag" offense dooms you to failure.

this one's gonna hurt to read: grisly demise of Tresselball. of course, the offense isn't "Tresselball,' it's Bollmanball, and it clearly doesn't underperforms 80% of the time. i wonder why?

i will be very pleasantly surprised if we make a decent bowl game this year...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
southcampus;1995713; said:
Jordan Hall + 25 OFFENSIVE touches = victory.
The run game is something that is working and I think the coaches see that. It sets up the passing game so instead of farting around Bollman should just go with running the ball.............lots! :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
Like we did against Toledo when they stacked the box. If not for the one Carlos broke we would have lost that game. We are one dimensional and easy to stop, even Indiana will slow it down. Can`t win today without the threat of the forward pass......not consistently. Go Bucks
 
Upvote 0
3rd and 1
4th and inches (four down territory)
3rd and goal on the one

Do you feel confident we can get the first down/TD? Who do you feel most confident can get it?

I can't answer this because I don't feel real confident. Also, does JHall's size present a problem in these situations??
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top